Medical devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
522 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 18 · 522 total
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok’s IPRs were stayed as the PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review to reconsider institution decisions after denying the patent owner’s motion to terminate.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of the institution decisions in TikTok’s IPRs against Cellspin Soft’s diabetes‑monitoring patent, staying the proceedings pending a new opinion.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving TikTok and Cellspin Soft, staying the cases while it re‑examines institution decisions tied to RPI and sovereign‑entity arguments.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.